August headlines

Return to August article index

GM soybeans safe despite gene discovery, Monsanto says

August 20
Food Chemical News Daily

Monsanto Co. said Aug. 17 that its genetically modified soybeans are safe for consumers despite the reported discovery of an alien gene in the crop line.

"This isn’t new information," said Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley.

"There’s no safety issue."

Discounting the report from Belgium, Hurley said Monsanto had already found the unexpected DNA strain in its Roundup Ready soybeans. Upon discovering the gene about a year ago, St. Louis-based Monsanto told FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world, he added.

The controversy arose earlier in the week when Belgian scientists reported having found a DNA strain next to the gene Monsanto inserts in its GM soybeans. The lead scientist, Marc De Loose, said this strain does not affect the soybean’s safety.

But investors, still reeling from last September’s discovery of unapproved GM corn in the human food supply, reacted sharply to the report. Soybean prices fell Aug. 16 on the Chicago Board of Trade’s futures market. 

Greenpeace, a vocal opponent of GM crops, pointed to the scientists’ report in calling for the soybeans to be pulled from the market.

The peer-reviewed report was published in the European "Journal of Food Research Technology."

Threat from fatal bugs as labs breach safety rules

August 19
Observer (UK)

A renowned government laboratory in Oxford working with a potentially lethal virus breached key safety laws designed to prevent  deadly bugs from escaping and infecting the public.

The violation is the latest in a recent escalation of critical safety breaches by scientists genetically modifying killer diseases to find cures or develop vaccines.

An Observer investigation has discovered that several of Britain's leading research institutions working with HIV, TB, hepatitis and a range of other dangerous viruses have broken safety rules aimed at protecting the public from infection.

Many of these breaches involve scientists genetically modifying viruses, creating new forms of diseases that could have catastrophic results if they escaped into the environment.

Only two weeks ago Imperial College, London, was prosecuted and fined thousands of pounds for exposing the public to a lethal new genetically modified virus. Scientists were creating a deadly new hybrid virus, for which no vaccine or treatment exists, from dengue fever and hepatitis C. 

This is the second time this year that Imperial has been prosecuted for a 'seriously flawed' approach to health and safety involving research on lethal viruses. Its earlier prosecution involved exposing the public  to an 'unacceptable risk' from HIV.

The Observer has discovered that this year has seen a record number of prosecutions and violations of safety rules governing highly dangerous organisms.

As well as legal action against Imperial College, Birmingham University was fined for putting staff and public at risk of contracting TB after ventilation filters in the medical school laboratories were found to be not working properly. This could have led to passers-by being infected with TB if there been a spillage.

In May, the National Environment Research Council's laboratory in Oxford was criticized by government inspectors over its safety procedures involving GM research it was undertaking on the potentially lethal encephalitis bug. It has been ordered to refurbish its facilities by the end of the year or face prosecution. Health and safety inspector Simon Warne was concerned that, should there be an accident, it would be very difficult to fumigate the site and prevent it infecting workers and the public.

In 1999 Edinburgh University was the first research institution to be prosecuted for work on HIV under new regulations governing research on dangerous GM organisms in the lab. As well as the prosecution against Imperial College and Edinburgh University, there have been 12 violations of the law designed to stop dangerous new GM viruses escaping into the environment.

It has emerged that one of the most serious breaches occurred in 1995 when the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was forced to stop work it was doing in the heart of the capital on chagas disease, which kills many people in Latin America.

Dr Sue Mayer, director of Genewatch, said: 'These incidents are very disturbing but I believe they are just the tip of the iceberg. There are now hundreds of institutions around the country using GM to create dangerous organisms, and the potential for a disaster is enormous. There is only a handful of inspectors checking what is going on, and the way university and research institutions have acted in the past  suggests that this may well not be enough.'

One of the problems is that many of Britain's laboratories have suffered years of neglect and the buildings predate the new regulations  governing the type of research being undertaken.

Science Minister Lord Sainsbury recently described the state of many laboratories as 'appalling' and went on to say: 'That does not make for good working practice in terms of efficiency, nor, I believe, safety.' 

The Government and the Wellcome Trust have announced [pounds]1.75bn for research and restoration of university research facilities.

Ken Ashley, acting head of the dangerous pathogen unit at the Health and Safety Executive, said: 'The reason why there has been an increase in prosecutions is that far more work in this area is going on.'

Critics slam food label plan

Draft allows 5 percent of ingredients to be genetically modified

August 18
Toronto Star

Critics of altered foods - pointing to a 1 per cent standard in Europe - say the Canadian proposal is so high it would make no-GMO (genetically modified organism) claims and the standard meaningless.

A committee of industry, farm, government and some consumer groups set up a federal standards board that has been working on a proposal for voluntary labels for two years.

They released draft standards yesterday and invited public comments.

``The draft you see is not a finalized draft,'' said Ken Hough, a committee member who represents the Ontario Corn Producers' Association.

There's still plenty of disagreement among members about the standards, including the 5 per cent threshold, he said. Some would prefer a limit of 1 or 2 per cent.

The committee would also bar manufacturers from using absolute terms on packaging. Terms such as ``100 per cent,'' or ``free'' or ``all'' wouldn't be allowed.

Foods also couldn't imply ``an improvement that does not exist.''

The Council of Canadians would like to see Canada adopt a system more like the one in Europe, where there's a 1 per cent level and labeling is mandatory.

Nadege Adam, the group's health protection campaigner, called the committee's proposals ``horrible.''

``The threshold is just way too high,'' she said.

``It allows for a significant amount of genetically engineered material to be contained in an ingredient and still carry a label of GMO-free . . . It's very misleading.''

Adam said testing for the council on some processed foods acknowledged to include genetically modified ingredients have turned up levels of just 2 per cent.

But Hough said 5 per cent is reasonable because it's so difficult to segregate GMO-free foods from altered foods. Corn, for example, is a cross-pollinated crop so there can easily be some transfer of material through air currents, he said. As well, modified seeds or grains could mix with non-altered material in storage containers or trucks.

``Five per cent is something that we feel within the industry is manageable, is easy to ensure consumers that there would not be more than that amount of inadvertent movement,'' he said.

Hough doubts European food manufacturers can actually meet a 1 per cent standard. ``Europe thinks they can do it, but I would challenge whether they could or not,'' he said.

The draft standards say a manufacturer couldn't intentionally add engineered material to meet the maximum permitted level and still call itself a food that's not a product of gene technology.

The council's Adam said another major objection she has to the proposal is that it's only voluntary, adding polls have made it very clear Canadians want mandatory labeling.

Some environmental and health food organizations, including the Council of Canadians, have refused to take part in the committee's work because they want mandatory labels.

The committee is meeting at the request of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which has said it wants a voluntary, but consistent national approach to labeling.

Grocers have agreed that no products on their shelves will be allowed to be labeled GMO-free until there's a uniform code for such labels. They've been requiring that stickers be placed over any packaging that claims the contents are GMO-free.

Copies of the draft standards haven't been posted on the Internet, but can be obtained by writing to the Project on the Voluntary Labeling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification at 11 Laurier St, Place du Portage, Phase III, Hull, Que., K1A 1G6, or faxing 819-956-5740. The deadline for comments is Oct. 17.

Earlier this year, U.S. regulators refused to require labels on genetically altered foods, but said they would publish food makers' own safety tests and data on the Internet to ease consumer concerns.

U.S. soybean exports seen unfazed by mystery gene

August 17
Reuters

Chicago -- U.S. grain industry analysts said on Friday scientists' discovery of unidentified DNA fragments in gene-modified soybeans was unlikely to scare off importers from the American export market.

The sources saw no parallels between the discovery and last year's situation when an unapproved gene-modified corn entered the U.S. food chain, sparking recalls of food products and causing a slump in exports of American corn to its top buyer, Japan.

Belgian scientists discovered the gene fragments in Roundup Ready soybeans, grown from seed developed by biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. which are spliced with a bacterium to make them resistant to Roundup herbicide.

Marc De Loose from Belgium's Center for Agricultural Research said there was no evidence to suggest the alien fragments could lead to any unknown effects, such as possible allergic reactions in people.

On Friday, environmental group Greenpeace called on France to ban imports of Roundup Ready soybeans, saying the soybeans had been authorized for use as human food and feedstocks for animals on an ``incomplete and false'' basis.

Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley responded by saying the Greenpeace demand was unjustified.

``There is no safety issue here at all that Greenpeace alleges,'' he said. ``It's absolutely uncalled for. The regulatory authorities have stood by the safety of Roundup Ready soybeans and there is no reason to ban them.''

Europe is a leading export market for U.S. soybeans and soy products. The EU recently unveiled tough new rules for food derived from gene-modified crops, including labeling and records tracing crop origin to the farm.

The rules come in the wake of protests by environmental and green groups in Europe against genetically modified foods, arguing more research is needed to ensure safety.

Grain analyst Charlie Sernatinger of brokerage ED&F Man International said that although the discovery spooked the grains market, he did not expect any decline in exports.

``From a psychological standpoint, it's certainly negative to the market, because there are some companies in Europe that demand non-genetically modified soybeans. Whether this is going to increase is an open question,'' he said.

However, he said European demand for U.S. soybeans was unlikely to wane, adding that oilseeds such as canola and rapeseed were limited substitutes as animal feedstocks.

``Canola and rapeseed can act as substitutes to a certain extent, but they are crushed for oil, not meal,'' Sernatinger said.

Analyst Joe Victor of Allendale Inc. said Roundup Ready soybeans could not be compared with gene-altered StarLink corn, which was discovered to have slipped into the U.S. food chain.

``StarLink was not approved for human consumption. The DNA in Roundup Ready soybeans has not changed in five years.''

Mattie Sharpless, the U.S. Agriculture Department's Foreign Agricultural Service acting head, said in April that U.S. corn exports were under a cloud ``literally all over the world'' because of StarLink corn.

The USDA had to revise down its export forecast for U.S. corn in the 2000/01 marketing year as Japan and South Korea, the top two importers, switched to other suppliers as StarLink corn turned up in U.S. cargoes bound for the two countries.

Steve Freed of ADM Investor Services said the export demand scenario would depend on importers' needs. ``I don't know what really goes through the mind of the European Community buyer, or the Chinese buyer. If they need, they will buy them; if they don't, they might use this (discovery) as an excuse.''

Almost 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are gene-modified, nearly all of them Roundup Ready soybeans.

U.S. soybean industry seeks break in China GMO rules

August 17
Reuters

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. soybean industry, hoping to minimize disruptions to a major export market, is asking China to set a transition period for new rules on imported foods that have been genetically modified.

On June 6, China put into effect rules governing genetically modified organisms. But the details on how the regulations are to be implemented still have not been laid out by China.

Asian commodity traders are speculating it could be months before those details are forthcoming from China, possibly jeopardizing U.S. exports of the soybean crop that will soon be marketed.

"We would like the application (of the new rules) delayed until the details are announced. And then, we need a sufficient time period to make the necessary applications," said Stephen Censky, chief executive officer of the St. Louis-based American Soybean Association.

Censky explained that it will take time for U.S. exporters to apply for shipment of GMO soybeans, have those applications reviewed and adhere to whatever other bureaucratic requirements China imposes. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 68 percent of domestic soybeans are genetically modified.

China's new rules require safety certificates stating GMO products are not harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Imported GMO foods will also require special labeling.

During the first half of this year, China imported nearly 6 million tons of soybeans, with about three-quarters of that being supplied by the United States.

U.S. MAJOR SOYBEAN SUPPLIER

According to the latest USDA estimates, China will import from all sources 13.2 million tons of soybeans in 2000/01 and 14.5 million tons in 2001/02 (Sept. 1-Aug. 31).

Asked in a telephone interview this week whether the current confusion

over China's new GMO rules has had an impact on soybean trade, Censky responded, "Can we point to specific shipments being blocked? We can't."

Censky added that now is a seasonally "slow time in the shipping period" but there are concerns over U.S. sales that normally would be expected to accelerate in September and October.

Another U.S. agriculture industry source, who asked not to be identified, said new sales "have very much slowed up. The trade doesn't know what the rules are. I'd be surprised if anyone is making new sales" of soybeans to China.

Various USDA officials would not comment on the likely impact of China's new GMO rules and the uncertainties of the implementing details. 

A USDA spokesman said the agency has "done no analysis, primarily because the Chinese have not released the regulations, so we're not sure what all is involved."

Censky insisted that if China's GMO regulations are "applied in a transparent and scientific manner, they should have no" negative impact on U.S. soybean sales.

He added that with China on the verge of becoming a member of the World Trade Organization, it has an "obligation" to play by internationally-accepted sanitary rules for food. 

Censky said his organization has had daily conversations with officials at USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative's office to urge them to convey the industry's "concerns" to China.

He also said that if China's GMO regulations are not fleshed out by October, it would be "appropriate" for President George W. Bush to raise concerns then with Chinese leaders during a visit to that country.

Canada press: Liability issues surface in GM crop debate

August 14
Resource News International

Winnipeg -- While corporations like Monsanto fight for the right to own and control the genetically modified (GM) seeds they create, they also need to worry about what happens when that seed ends up where it's not wanted, a University of Saskatchewan law professor told a group of lawyers Monday, according to an article in the Saskatoon StarPheonix.

"Does Monsanto have any liability for this technology?" Martin Phillipson asked during a panel discussion on the ethics of new technologies at the Canadian Bar Association's annual conference being held in Saskatoon.

"Farmers in this province are spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to get rid of this canola that they didn't plant," he said, referring to Monsanto's Round-Up Ready canola.

"They have to use more and more powerful pesticides to get rid of this technology, and Monsanto seems to have no liability."

Contamination fears stem from the possibility that a genetically modified crop may cross-pollinate with a neighboring conventional crop, resulting in the conventional crop producing seeds that carry the modified gene.

Those who believe GM crops are a pollutant are starting to explore the idea that the corporations who own the technology should be left holding the bag if contamination by a GM crop causes property damage, Phillipson said.

"That's a significant issue for this country. We have to find out what the legal ramifications are. If something goes wrong, who is going to pay for it? One of the big issues that is coming to a head right now is, what are the obligations of the owners?"

Phillipson echoed concerns recently raised by farmers about the introduction of genetically modified wheat, which could be released in Canada in three to five years. Monsanto, one of the companies developing GM wheat, has a test plot for the new organism in Saskatchewan, though not even the provincial government is allowed to know where it is.

Alan McHughen, senior research scientist at the U of S Crop Development Center, countered Phillipson with a warning that the legal community should make sure it has solid information about genetic modification before debating the issue.

"The first thing you do in an issue is you accumulate the facts," he said.

"Contamination is a very emotional term and I would encourage you to look beyond that and say `How does it relate to the status quo?' I mean seeds get mixed up all the time. Ever since we started agriculture the seeds get blown across a field and so on."

Scientists will never be able to prove anything is 100% safe, he said. "The scientific community does know that there are risks with this technology. The question is to minimize those risks, to identify them and manage them so we can benefit from this technology while at the same time reducing our exposure to hazard."

Panelist Philip Bereano, a professor of technology and public policy at the University of Washington in Seattle, said getting neutral answers about the risks of genetically modified organisms is difficult in the current funding environment.

An information package he received from the U of S prior to attending the CBA conference "was full of words about the scientific work that's going on and very little indication at all that any comparable work is going on into human health risks, environmental risks," he said.

"It's a social choice by powerful groups to promote the science and not the risk assessment," he said.

Study shows genes passed from crops to weeds persist for generations, may threaten agriculture

August 9
AScribe News

Madison, Wisc. -- Genetic traits passed from crops to their weedy relatives can persist for at least six generations, and probably much longer, according to an Ohio State University study conducted with radishes.

This means genetic traits that are developed in crops -- such as resistance to insect pests -- can become a permanent part of the weed population, in turn posing possible risks to crops.

These results suggest that biotech companies should steer clear of developing transgenic radish varieties with beneficial traits that could be passed on to weeds, said Allison Snow, a study co-author and a professor of ecology at Ohio State University.

Transgenic crops are crops engineered with specialized traits such as resistance to viral diseases, insect pests and herbicides.

While the new hybrid weeds may not be as fit at first as their wild parents, they seem to regain reproductive fitness quickly, Snow said.

"It's inevitable that these and other fitness-related traits will make their way into weed populations," Snow said. "The result may be very hardy, hard-to-kill weeds."

In California, the crop itself has become a highly successful and very damaging weed. Scientists suspect that this transition was aided by genes from the wild radish. In fact, wild radish is considered one of the 100 most economically damaging weeds worldwide.

"Gene movement from crops to their wild relatives is an ongoing process that can spur rapid evolutionary adaptation in weeds that will be ultimately harmful to crops," Snow said.

Snow presented the findings August 9 in Madison, Wisc. at the annual Ecological Society of America meeting.

The researchers studied four populations of hybrid and wild radish for six years in Michigan. At the outset, each field consisted of 100 first-generation crop-wild radish hybrids and 100 wild radishes. To monitor the continuation of crop radish genes in the populations, the researchers looked for four genetic traits: two enzymes, flower color and pollen fertility.

On average, the wild radishes reached peak flowering one month before the hybrid plants. The hybrids also produced fewer seeds per fruit than wild plants and fewer viable pollen grains. A large portion of hybrids never produced fruits (60 to 78 percent), while 92 to 97 percent of the wild plants did.

Even so, traits from the original crop -- such as white flower color -- persisted in subsequent generations of hybrid radishes.

"Even though the effects of delayed flowering and reduced fertility inhibited the movement of certain crop traits to later generations, we did find evidence of crop genes in every generation," Snow said.

In order to compare the lifetime fertility of wild and hybrid varieties, the researchers also grew one population of potted radishes.

Viable pollen averaged 63 percent in the potted hybrids, as compared to 92 percent in wild plants. The hybrids produced only half as many seeds per fruit as wild plants. Although the potted hybrid plants flowered on average half a month later than the potted wild ones, the hybrid radishes still produced enough viable pollen with enough time left in the growing season for pollination to occur.

"The hybrids were capable of ecologically significant levels of reproduction," Snow said. "The second hybrid generation was still at a fitness disadvantage, but to a lesser extent than the first hybrid generation. This indicated that their reproductive fitness was increasing."

The next step is to figure out if crop genes benefit weed populations and also to gauge how easily crops can become wild.

"The constant gene flow between crops and weeds is a subtle process that no one may notice, but evolution can happen very quickly," Snow said.

Snow conducted her research with Kristen Uthus, a graduate student in Ohio State's Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology graduate program and Theresa Culley, a researcher at the University of California, Irvine.

Snow's research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan Biological Station.